Dumas v. L. A. Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors

• Decision Date: 18 February 2020
• Docket Number: B288554
• Citation: 258 Cal.Rptr.3d 658,45 Cal.App.5th 348
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Luke Edward DUMAS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS et al., Defendants and Respondents.

45 Cal.App.5th 348

258 Cal.Rptr.3d 658

Luke Edward DUMAS, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.LOS ANGELES COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS et al., Defendants and Respondents.

B288554

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California.

Filed February 18, 2020

Luke Edward Dumas, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Coleman and Associates and John M. Coleman, Pasadena, for Defendants and Respondents.

MANELLA, P. J.

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Luke Edward Dumas brought this action against respondents, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (collectively, "the County"), and others, alleging various civil rights violations. The trial court ultimately dismissed the complaint based on appellant’s repeated discovery violations.

On appeal, appellant argues the court erred in, inter alia: (1) failing to notify him of its ruling striking his statement of disqualification; (2) sustaining the County’s demurrer in part, despite its failure to meet and confer; (3) granting the County’s motion to strike his request for punitive damages without considering his opposition; and (4) denying his motion to quash a subpoena for his medical records. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

A. The Complaint and the County’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike

In 2016, appellant filed a complaint in propria persona against the County, the County Sheriff, as an individual, and others, asserting several causes of action relating to appellant’s 2015 arrest by sheriff’s department deputies. Among other things, the complaint alleged the defendants caused appellant physical and emotional injuries, and requested punitive damages.

The County concurrently demurred and moved to strike appellant’s request for punitive damages. In a declaration attached to the demurrer, the County’s counsel stated he had sent "a written Meet and Confer request" to appellant, but had received no response. Appellant filed oppositions to both the demurrer and the motion to strike. As to the demurrer, appellant appeared to complain, inter alia, that counsel did not call him to meet and confer.

The trial court, Judge Gregory Keosian, sustained the demurrer in part without leave to amend, dismissing one cause of action as invalid, and dismissing the County Sheriff as a defendant because he could not be liable for his subordinates’ actions. The court did not address appellant’s apparent challenge to the meet and confer process. The court also granted the County’s motion to strike, reasoning that public entities cannot be held liable for punitive damages.¹ (See Gov. Code § 818 ["Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a public entity is not liable for ... damages imposed primarily for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant"].)

B. Appellant’s Motion to Quash and Statement of Disqualification, and the Court’s Dismissal of the Complaint

During discovery, the County noticed appellant’s deposition and subpoenaed his medical records from a third party. Appellant moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that it sought irrelevant information and would violate his right to privacy if enforced. The trial court denied the motion, noting appellant’s allegations of physical and emotional injuries.

After appellant failed to appear for his deposition, the trial court granted the County’s unopposed motion to compel. On January 23, 2018, appellant filed a statement of disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.3.² In that filing, which demonstrated appellant’s familiarity with statutory disqualification procedures, appellant asserted, inter alia, that Judge Keosian was biased against him as a Mexican-American and a propria persona litigant, and was partial to the County. Three days later, on January 26, Judge Keosian struck the statement of disqualification as both untimely and facially disclosing no legal grounds for disqualification. Appellant did not petition for a writ of mandate to challenge this ruling.

Later that month, appellant again failed to appear for his deposition. On February 2, on the County’s motion, the trial court issued an order to show cause why appellant’s complaint should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the order compelling his deposition. After appellant failed to appear for the hearing on the order to show cause or to otherwise respond, the court dismissed the case without prejudice. Appellant timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, appellant contends the trial court mishandled his statement of disqualification and erred in partially sustaining the County’s demurrer. He also seeks to challenge the court’s ruling on the County’s motion to strike and the denial of his motion to quash the County’s subpoena. We address his claims in turn.

A. The Statement of Disqualification

Appellant challenges the trial court’s handling of his statement of disqualification, asserting primarily that he did not receive notice of Judge Keosian’s ruling. Section 170.1 provides certain grounds for the disqualification of a judge. Section 170.3 outlines the procedures for determining disqualification challenges. As noted, under section 170.3, if a judge who should disqualify himself or herself fails to do so, any party may file a verified written statement setting forth facts constituting grounds for disqualification. ( § 170.3, subd. (c)(1).) The objecting party must file this statement at the "earliest practicable opportunity" after discovery of the relevant facts. (Ibid. )

Once a party has filed a statement of disqualification, the judge has no power to act in the case until the question of disqualification has been determined. (§ 170.4, subd. (d); People v. Lind (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 709, 714, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 845 ( Lind ).) The judge may either (1) request another judge on whom the parties agree to take his or her place, without conceding disqualification; (2) file a "consent to disqualification"; or (3) file a "written verified answer admitting or denying any or all of the allegations ...." ( § 170.3, subds. (c)(2) & (3).) If the judge refuses to recuse, the question of disqualification is generally to be determined by another judge. ( § 170.3, subd. (c)(5).) However, under section 170.4, subdivision (b), if the statement is untimely or on its face discloses no legal grounds for disqualification, the judge may strike it. ( Urias v. Harris Farms, Inc. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 415, 420, 285 Cal.Rptr. 659 ( Urias ).) "Failure to take any action within 10 days [is] deemed a consent to disqualification." ( Hollingsworth v. Superior Court (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 22, 26, 236 Cal.Rptr. 193 ( Hollingsworth ); accord, § 170.3, subd. (c)(3) & (4).) "Thereafter, the judge is deemed disqualified and has no power to act in the case." ( Hollingsworth , at p. 26, 236 Cal.Rptr. 193.)

The determination of the question of disqualification, including the striking of the objecting party’s statement under section 170.4, subdivision (b), is not an appealable order. (See PBA, LLC v. KPOD, Ltd. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 965, 971, 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 532 ( PBA ) [appellants were precluded from seeking review of stricken statements of disqualification on appeal].) A party seeking review must petition for a writ of mandate "within 10 days after service of written notice of entry of the court’s order ...." ( § 170.3, subd. (d).)

Judge Keosian struck appellant’s statement of disqualification under section 170.4, subsection (b), concluding it was both untimely and facially failed to disclose grounds for disqualification. Appellant appears to acknowledge he may not directly challenge this ruling on appeal. He asserts, however, that he never received notice of the ruling and was therefore unable to petition for a writ of mandate. The record does not support this assertion.

In his statement of disqualification, appellant exhibited familiarity with disqualification procedures, including the requirement that the challenged judge respond to the statement in some way within 10 days, and the suspension of the judge’s power to act in the case until the question of disqualification has been determined. (See §§ 170.3, subd. (c)(3) & (4), 170.4, subd. (d) ; Lind , supra , 230 Cal.App.4th at p. 714, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 845 ; Hollingsworth , supra , 191 Cal.App.3d at p. 26, 236 Cal.Rptr. 193 ; Urias , supra , 234 Cal.App.3d at p. 420, 285 Cal.Rptr. 659.) On February 2, 2018, 10 days after appellant filed his statement of disqualification (and seven days after Judge Keosian struck that statement), Judge Keosian issued an order to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed. Appellant does not dispute receiving notice of the order to show cause. His subsequent failure below to claim he had not received notice of any action on his statement of disqualification, or to complain that Judge Keosian had no power to issue an order to show cause while the disqualification question was pending, suggests he was in fact aware that Judge Keosian had stricken the statement. To the extent appellant argues Judge Keosian erred in striking his statement of disqualification, that claim is not reviewable on appeal. (See § 170.3, subd. (d) ; PBA , supra , 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 971, 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 532.)

B. The Demurrer

Appellant argues the County failed to properly meet and confer with him before filing the demurrer. He contends that under section 430.41, the County’s insufficient efforts required the trial court to overrule the demurrer. Appellant’s contentions regarding the meaning of the statute raise questions of law subject to de novo review. (See In re T.B. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 125, 129, 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 [interpretation of statute reviewed de novo].)

Under section 430.41, before filing a demurrer, the demurring party must meet and confer with the party who filed the challenged pleading "in person or by telephone" to determine if the demurring party’s objections can be resolved by agreement. (§ 430.41, subd. (a)(1).) If the parties are unable to meet and confer at least five days before the...